Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 9662/13

  TSONEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  The courts have already awarded damages under these provisions, as amended in December 2012, in relation to prosecutor-ordered detention (see the case cited in Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9662/13, § 39, 30 May 2017).

  The Court has already found that a claim for damages under section 2(1)(1) or (1)(2) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, as amended in December 2012 (see paragraph 48 above) is a remedy which is normally available and adequate with respect to an alleged breach of Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention that has already come to an end, and that it offers a reasonable prospect of success, in spite of the relative scarcity of rulings under those provisions (see Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9662/13, §§ 54-69, 30 May 2017; Kolev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 69591/14, §§ 34-40, 30 May 2017; and Harizanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53626/14, §§ 80-81, 5 December 2017).

• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010; Vučković and Others, cited above, § 69; and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  6194/11 and 34887/11, § 128, 18 June 2013).

• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12

  PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  In the light of the Bulgarian courts' recent tendency, including in proceedings under the 1988 Act, to engage more broadly with arguments based on the Convention by reason of its being directly applicable in domestic law (see paragraph 52 above), it cannot automatically be presumed that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention as irrelevant (contrast Kandzhov, cited above, § 49, which predated the domestic judgments cited in paragraph 52 above, and compare with Multigestion v. France (dec.), no. 59341/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts), and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 37, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 25.04.2002 - 59341/00

  MULTIGESTION contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  In the light of the Bulgarian courts' recent tendency, including in proceedings under the 1988 Act, to engage more broadly with arguments based on the Convention by reason of its being directly applicable in domestic law (see paragraph 52 above), it cannot automatically be presumed that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention as irrelevant (contrast Kandzhov, cited above, § 49, which predated the domestic judgments cited in paragraph 52 above, and compare with Multigestion v. France (dec.), no. 59341/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts), and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 37, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11

  SIK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  Inasmuch as the applicant's detention in the context of that criminal case can be seen, in itself and independently of the criminal proceedings themselves, as interference with his right to freedom of expression (see Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 70, 6 November 2008; Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, §§ 95-96, 8 July 2014; Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, §§ 84-85, 8 July 2014; and Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 88, 7 March 2017), the question arises whether the remedies which the applicant had with respect to that detention - one of which has already been found effective with respect to his grievance under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 68 and 69 above) - could be seen as effective also for his grievance under Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 29680/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  There are no special circumstances capable of prompting the conclusion that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings against the applicant could, regardless of their outcome, be seen as interference with that right (compare and contrast Dilipak v. Turkey, no. 29680/05, §§ 48-51, 15 September 2015, and Ali Gürbüz v. Turkey, nos. 52497/08 and 6 others, §§ 64-69, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9540/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  When hearing a claim under those provisions concerning the police detention of a man who had spray-painted the Soviet Army monument in Sofia, the Sofia City Administrative Court annulled the detention order with reference, inter alia, to this Court's rulings under Article 10 of the Convention in Murat Vural v. Turkey (no. 9540/07, 21 October 2014) and Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014) (see реш. № 3885 от 05.06.2015 г. по адм. д. № 9173/2014 г., АдмС-София-град).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11

  SENER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  Inasmuch as the applicant's detention in the context of that criminal case can be seen, in itself and independently of the criminal proceedings themselves, as interference with his right to freedom of expression (see Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 70, 6 November 2008; Nedim Şener v. Turkey, no. 38270/11, §§ 95-96, 8 July 2014; Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, §§ 84-85, 8 July 2014; and Döner and Others v. Turkey, no. 29994/02, § 88, 7 March 2017), the question arises whether the remedies which the applicant had with respect to that detention - one of which has already been found effective with respect to his grievance under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 68 and 69 above) - could be seen as effective also for his grievance under Article 10 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15

  Kein Grundrecht auf assistierten Suizid

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  2478/15 and 1787/15, § 90, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 45806/11

  ZIKATANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45023/98

  BEN SALAH ADRAQUI and DHAIME v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

  KOLEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 52497/08

  GÜRBÜZ c. TURQUIE et 6 autres affaires
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 53626/14

  HARIZANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 30514/96

  ALINAK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 15619/12

  PAPAIOANNOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 8981/14

  KUNERT v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 80959/17

  PISKORSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 30915/23

  ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  There is therefore no reason automatically to presume that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Articles 3 and 14 as irrelevant (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 80, 8 September 2020, and Zlatanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53050/21, § 227, 30 January 2024).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  The Court has had occasion to note that police or pre-trial detention and concomitant hooliganism proceedings constitute distinct interferences with the right to freedom of expression (see Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 70, 6 November 2008, and Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, §§ 74-75, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 19.05.2026 - 938/21

  PETROVA v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 94 In Bulgaria, the Convention is part of domestic law, is directly applicable, and takes precedence over any conflicting provisions of domestic law (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, §§ 95-97, 27 January 2015; Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, §§ 50-52, 8 September 2020; and Zlatanov, cited above, §§ 196 and 228).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  Nor can the Court speculate on how the Bulgarian courts will approach this aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 77 in fine, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40669/16

  DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA

  Admittedly, a remedy that is only intended to afford redress in respect of certain grievances under the Convention can sometimes also be used to afford redress in respect of other kinds of Convention grievances (see, for instance, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, §§ 77 and 80, 8 September 2020, and Zlatanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53050/21, §§ 227-28, 30 January 2024).
• EGMR, 10.12.2024 - 1284/21

  EUROFOOTBALL OOD v. BULGARIA

  The Court cannot speculate on the approach the domestic courts might take and sees no reason to consider that they would not examine the matter fairly, in the light of the relevant circumstances and the evidence presented (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 77, 8 September 2020, and Zlatanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53050/21, § 192, 30 January 2024).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19

  BANEVI c. BULGARIE

  Elle a notamment constaté que, étant de type indemnitaire, ce recours ne peut en principe fournir un redressement approprié pour des violations alléguées de l'article 5 que dans les cas où la situation litigieuse, qui est incompatible avec l'article 5 de la Convention, a déjà pris fin (Kolev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 69591/14, §§ 32-42, 30 mai 2017 ; Tsonev c. Bulgarie ((déc.), no 9662/13, §§ 52-70, 30 mai 2017 ; et Stefanov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 51127/18, §§ 68-69, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 10351/18

  NINOVA v. BULGARIA

  The absence of a previous decision along those lines by the Speaker's Council does not in itself suggest that the possibility of having such arguments taken into account by it was merely illusory - that could well have been due to the absence of such challenges under Rule 162 § 3 of the Rules of the Assembly or its predecessor provisions (see paragraph 39 in fine above, and compare, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 80 in fine, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE

  En effet, étant de type indemnitaire, ce recours peut en principe fournir un redressement approprié pour des violations alléguées de l'article 5 dans les cas où la situation litigieuse, qui est incompatible avec l'article 5 de la Convention, a déjà pris fin (Kolev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 69591/14, §§ 32-42, 30 mai 2017 ; Tsonev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9662/13, §§ 52-70, 30 mai 2017 ; et Stefanov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 51127/18, §§ 68-69, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 36250/12

  SLAVKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  However, the remedy at issue was introduced in December 2012 (see, for more details, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 48, 8 September 2020), while the applicant's detention ended on 11 July 2012 (see paragraph 2 above), and the Court has already found that section 2(1)(2) has not been shown to apply to facts having occurred prior to its entry into force (see, for example, Kiril Andreev v. Bulgaria, no. 79828/12, §§ 31-41, 28 January 2016).